tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-47451813207835009932024-03-05T21:29:06.137-08:00StarsuckersStarsuckershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16696776789077115432noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4745181320783500993.post-84813897284225473452012-09-19T13:28:00.000-07:002012-09-20T02:22:56.981-07:00Starsuckers US release, update!So our US distributor Revolver has been working their magic, and Amazon have agreed to release the film on Amazon Instant Video, which is very exciting. A great deal of the film is set in the USA - the central character, Ri-Yann is from Las Vegas - so it's fantastic for it to finally be getting a US release!
more info on this as it comes up... also rumours that iTunes will be going large on the film as well.
<a href="http://www.revolvergroup.com/us/dvd-bluray/view/starsuckers">Starsuckers page on Revolver Site</a>
Starsuckershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16696776789077115432noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4745181320783500993.post-23208632201673428172012-08-28T11:20:00.000-07:002012-08-31T10:15:04.775-07:00Starsuckers gets US release!!!Thanks to the lovely people at Revolver US, Starsuckers will be released on DVD and iTunes on the 25th September. To order your copy and find out more go to the <a href="http://www.revolvergroup.com/us/dvd-bluray/view/starsuckers">Revolver site</a>...
join the <a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/Starsuckers/410421902347260">US Starsuckers Facebook Group here</a>Starsuckershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16696776789077115432noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4745181320783500993.post-70067846087124666702011-11-18T14:48:00.000-08:002011-11-18T14:55:26.941-08:00Access to JusticeWe recently made a <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/video/2011/nov/18/no-win-no-fee-libel-justice-video">film for the Guardian</a> about the victims of press smears. <br />
<br />
This is the letter that I've written to Lord McNally (mcnallyt@parliament.uk) the minister responsible for passing the law.<br />
<br />
Dear Lord McNally<br />
<br />
I’m not anyone remotely important so not expecting a response to this mail. I’m not a celebrity, politician, pollster or lobbyist so I’m probably the last person you’ll want to listen to. I’m just an ordinary person who cares about what happens to other ordinary people.<br />
<br />
Under intense lobbying from the media, Parliament is about to severely restrict CFA/No Win No Fee arrangements. This self serving campaign was hatched by large media corporations, who want to avoid being troubled by people on normal incomes suing them when they’ve been libeled. People like Chris Jefferies, who was smeared by a dozen newspapers who decided that he was guilty of the murder of Jo Yaetes, despite the fact that he was completely innocent. Jefferies quickly realised that the PCC was simply a lobbying group for the press, masquerading as a regulator. The only way he could possibly restore his reputation was through the courts, and the only means he could afford the crippling legal costs was with a No Win No Fee agreement. Jefferies won, but were he unfortunate to go through the same experience after your law restricts CFAs, no lawyer would take him on, and his life would be demolished.<br />
<br />
His story and others are in a film I’ve just made for the Guardian, so if you have 10 minutes to listen to the public, they make a compelling case.<br />
<br />
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/video/2011/nov/18/no-win-no-fee-libel-justice-video<br />
<br />
I know none of them runs a large media corporation, so they obviously aren’t nearly as important as Paul Dacre or James Murdoch who can, by their own accounts, tilt elections. They are just the poor unfortunate people who vote and pay taxes, so don’t trouble the Westminster village very much. Though I would point out that what happened to them could happen to any one of your friends, maybe a member of your family – possibly even to you. If that tabloid cyclone strikes close to home in a years time, and CFAs are a distant memory, you won’t have anywhere to turn. And maybe then it might seem like a good idea to have remembered that Justice is a right, not a luxury.<br />
<br />
It’s up to you<br />
<br />
Chris AtkinsStarsuckershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16696776789077115432noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4745181320783500993.post-4205039284957855072011-08-01T01:01:00.000-07:002011-08-01T01:01:36.055-07:00Genius complaint letterWe've had a few angry letters in response to this film, mainly from lawyers. But this one takes home the gold - and he's absolutely right!<br />
<br />
Hello,<br />
<br />
I've just finished watching the excellent Starsuckers' documentary on More4. For me the programme merely deepens long held misgivings with regard to Band Aid, Live8 and its sundry imitations, while reaction from those on the wrong end of your investigation, published on the website, increased these reservations still further if anything.<br />
<br />
But although congratulatiuons are deserved I must ask about one rather annoying feature on the graphics, and which smacks of compliance with EU diktat more than anything. This places Edinburgh in Scotland but puts London (and Birmingham and every other English city judging by the map used towards the end of the programme) somewhere called 'ukay'.<br />
<br />
Since what I saw on screen cannot have been either an accident or a mistake it must have happened by design. I find this odd since the monolithic corporate infuence over our lives you warn against so cogently and so successfully in the film also promotes the trans-national government that serves its interests and which, through European regional policy, is currently trying to impose unwanted anonymity on the English people.<br />
<br />
Why did your programme abolish England Mr Atkins?<br />
<br />
Sincerely<br />
<br />
AntonyStarsuckershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16696776789077115432noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4745181320783500993.post-33464054909768648582011-07-29T02:49:00.001-07:002011-07-29T02:49:36.353-07:00Film to be shown to UK TV again!Following the death of the News Of the World, one of the targets of Starsuckers, More4 have kindly agreed to screen the film again. It's on More4 11.10pm this Sunday 31st July. If enough people watch it they might show it again on the main channel!Starsuckershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16696776789077115432noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4745181320783500993.post-61487695316058523552010-12-27T04:07:00.000-08:002010-12-27T04:12:12.321-08:00More Fake Stories....The first thing anyone knew about Starsuckers was when the <a href="http://www.starsuckersmovie.com/news-and-reviews/">Guardian splashed the news</a> on it's front page that we had been selling fake celebrity stories to the Tabloid Press. At the time I <a href="http://www.starsuckersmovie.com/how-to/">wrote a guide</a> so that anyone else who wanted to make a few quid in these tough times could earn some quick cash selling their own nonsense to the great British Press. After the British TV screening on More4 in April, I suddenly started getting emails from students who had seen the film, been inspired, and picked up the phone to tabloid newsrooms and spun some yarns. The full details can be read in an article about these copycat hoaxes <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/pied-piper-of-mischief-leads-the-red-tops-on-a-merry-dance-2052832.html">in the Independent Newspaper here</a>.<br />
<br />
Hearing we had a new generation of hoaxers snapping at our heels, we realised we had to raise our game. So over the summer myself and Jonny Howorth faked a film about Urban Fox Hunting that was taken seriously by the entire British Press and BBC news. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/06/urban-fox-hunt-chris-atkins">Read the full story here.</a><br />
<br />
In it's own way hoaxing can highlight misreporting and media distortion better than any artlcle or blog post. If the news is putting out the wrong story, create something ridiculous that fits their set narrative, and send it in to the newsdesks. Happy hoaxing.Starsuckershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16696776789077115432noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4745181320783500993.post-56340665718604676002010-07-28T01:30:00.000-07:002010-07-28T01:30:45.100-07:00Film Council Abolished!Regular readers of this blog will be aware of the running battles Starsuckers has had with the UKFC, and their dogged attempts to <a href="http://starsuckers3.blogspot.com/2009/10/film-council-kicks-starsuckers-in-teeth.html">stop our film being released</a> because we upset the media elite. On monday 26th of July the culture secretary Jeremy Hunt announced that the UKFC was to be abolished which is something I and many other indie producers have been campaigning about for years. I've done several pieces in the media about this, but my views are probably best summed up by a piece I've done for The Times. It's sitting behind thier paywall but hopefully they won't mind if I reproduce it below:<br />
<br />
<b>No one under 35 will mourn the UK Film Council, argues the director Chris Atkins</b><br />
<br />
There has been much wailing about the demise of the UK Film Council, but many producers and directors are delighted that it’s finally been axed. My sentiments are not motivated by sour grapes — far from it — as a producer I had four films funded via the UKFC and so had the opportunity to observe their failings close hand, and, in my shame, help them to waste public money.<br />
The first problem? The choice of films. They cared more about promoting diversity and fulfilling social quotas than about strong scripts. For that reason Nina’s Heavenly Delights (the worst film that I or anyone else has produced) was given £250,000 by the Film Council via Scottish Screen, not because it was a good story — far from — but because it was about Asian lesbians making curry in Glasgow, and so the perfect PC trivector. It was a critical and commercial flop, but no matter; we ticked the boxes.<br />
The real scandals, however, came out of the UKFC distribution fund. This doled out more than £4 million a year in grants to help to release finished films (to pay for posters, advertising and so forth) and Pete Buckingham, the head of the fund, has given public money to some unlikely choices. In 2007, the impoverished rock band the Rolling Stones and the unknown director Martin Scorsese collaborated to make the forgettable Shine a Light — essentially a piece of marketing to plug the Stones’ album. The Film Council handed over £154,000 to promote Mick and Keith despite the Stones being worth more than £100 million. Furthermore, the grant went directly to a distributor that is part of an American studio. U2-3D, (also derided as a 90-minute album plug) got £164,496, generously helping out a band that rarely pays tax in Ireland, let alone the UK. That year I made my first half-decent film, Taking Liberties (four-star reviews and a Bafta nomination). When we applied for a similar grant our distributor received £5,000. While the UKFC was helping Jagger and Bono, my mum was going round her village handing out fliers.<br />
But the distribution fund’s greatest balls-up was the Digital Screen Network. In 2004 the Film Council announced that it was going to invest £14 million to install digital projectors in more than 200 cinemas. At first glance this was manna from heaven for low-budget film-makers. The costs of physically distributing our movies on celluloid film were crippling. Digital distribution could bypass all these costs, as hard drives could be made and shipped for a tiny fraction of the costs of film prints. But rather than make the technology “open source” (meaning that anyone can render a Quicktime on a hard drive and screen it) the Film Council decided to listen to the anti-pirating lobby, and set up an expensive encoding network. This meant that to get our film to cinema we had to go to just one company that had the monopoly on managing the Digital Screen Network. Getting a film out this way takes ten days and costs £5,000, even though you can encode a film at cinema quality on your Macbook free. The derisory £5,000 that the UKFC gives to every indie film suddenly doesn’t seem so generous.<br />
The real disaster, however, came with the council’s placement of the digital projector in cinemas. In the majority of cases the theatre owners put them in their largest screen, which made perfect sense to them because they could maximise revenues. But when independent films were being released, they would get placed in the smaller screens, with no digital projector, so we still had to spend money on prints. Meanwhile in Screen One, the publicly funded digital technology was screening Toy Story 2, which no doubt delighted the Hollywood studios that have had their costs subsidised.<br />
Then comes the running costs of the Film Council itself: 75 people in a five storey building, with a rent of £300,000 a year. Their top ten execs all earned more than £100,000 and the UKFC running costs were at one point listed at £7 million a year. Film4, which basically does the same thing as the UKFC (reads scripts and dishes out money) manages to operate with a staff of ten.<br />
The Film Council’s statistics department was a running joke among friends. They produced reams of reports, including posting box-office takings four days after they were available on a dozen other websites, and expensive studies that concluded that the Film Council was doing a jolly good job.<br />
It was doing a good job with its expenses claims. The CEO, John Woodward (salary more than £200,000 a year) was rumbled by The Times last year for spending £16,000 on lunches. More than a dozen members decamped to Cannes for the festival. My greatest hour came when I was producing A Woman in Winter, backed by the UKFC. I was flown to New York, first class, accompanied by four UKFC execs, on an all-expenses-paid trip and stayed in a top hotel for five days to pitch the film. It didn’t matter that the script was so esoteric that hardly anyone in Britain understood it, never mind any US studios. I did a handful of meetings with American execs who passed on the script even before I sat down. But I bought some cheap DVDS and got to run down the steps of the library they used at the start of Ghostbusters, so I wasn’t complaining. This is why there has been precious little criticism of the Film Council over the past ten years — no producer wants to cut off a source of potential funding.<br />
Getting funding from the Film Council was about knowing the right people, not having the best script. The council’s 2008-09 financial statement reveals that more than £13 million was awarded to films or companies in which members of the Film Council had an interest. The Film Council hated taking risks, so it was always easier to dole out more cash to the same tiny elite. Much of the wailing about its death has come from creaky industry figures who have been lucky enough to get some of the cash. While I admire Mike Leigh enormously, he has had more than his fair share of public funding, so it figures that he is a bit miffed.<br />
I have yet to hear a bad word about the end of the UKFC from anyone under 35, because it is the up-and-coming film-makers that the council has neglected over the years. A survey by Shooting People (the excellent website and newsletter that does cater for the independent up-and-coming film community) found that only 50 per cent of its members think it’s a bad decision. A new film-maker starting out with a cracking script and barrelful of talent was as likely to get a meeting with the UKFC as he was the head of Paramount. Once you’re in that sacred clique, you just pick up the phone and book in lunch at the Groucho.<br />
The Film Council represented the worst form of new Labour wastage, with layers of meaningless bureaucracy. Once the chairman, Tim Bevan (who works for Universal) started using the word “stakeholder” it was clear that this ship was on course for an iceberg. BBC Films and Film4 saw which way the wind was blowing, and slashed their costs and survived. The Film Council lumbered on and, with the coalition gaining power, it was an obvious target for cuts. I’m a big supporter of the Government giving limited cash to fund British movies, and I’m praying that this will continue. What we do not need is a fat, ineffective quango leeching millions away from the film-makers.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/film/article2662009.ece?lightbox=false">Link to article on The Times site</a>Starsuckershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16696776789077115432noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4745181320783500993.post-79926416695463056632010-05-06T06:15:00.000-07:002010-05-06T06:15:56.051-07:004th Private Eye Piece on Starsuckers...Nice piece in this weeks Private Eye on our recent dealings with Andrew Marr's producers. <a href="http://twitpic.com/1li9z1">See Article here</a> This is now the 4th Piece on Starsuckers in Private Eye - something of a record...Starsuckershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16696776789077115432noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4745181320783500993.post-11012953934781326812010-04-15T05:43:00.000-07:002010-05-06T06:26:31.480-07:00CALL MAX spoof Max Clifford advert now at 11,000 views and climbing...Max Clifford's involvement in Starsuckers has been pretty <br />
much ignored by the Mainstream Media (with the notable <br />
exception of <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/apr/06/max-clifford-starsuckers">Roy Greenslade in the Guardian</a>) This is <br />
hardly surprising, given that Max has so much control <br />
over what news we do and don't read. He is able to shut <br />
down stories about his clients getting up to no good, so <br />
he has been more than capable of killing off the story of <br />
how we had caught him on undercover camera. But not <br />
even Max and his friends Carter Ruck (who previously <br />
threatened to injunct the film) can shut down the internet, <br />
so please do pass this spoof advert of Max far and wide <br />
so people can learn what a slimy operator he is - the the <br />
mainstream news won't dare have a bad word said <br />
against him.<br />
<br />
Check out our <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6qy-n5sCrc">CALL MAX viral video on youtube...</a>Starsuckershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16696776789077115432noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4745181320783500993.post-89096950202385034202010-04-12T04:46:00.000-07:002010-04-12T04:54:50.168-07:00Ricky Gervias & Kev the Pap on Hampstead Heath...As this was the first weekend for about a year where I haven't either been locked in an edit suite or being shouted at by lawyers, I took a stroll in the direction of Hampstead Heath. I was enjoying the glorious sunshine, and was looking forward to 2 days without any contact with Starsuckers, media law, or anything remotely to do with celebrity culture. I realised this was not to be when I noticed an extremely long camera lens poking out from behind a silver car, pointing suspiciously in my direction. After briefly fantasising that I might now be famous enough to be pap worthy (possibly due to my <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/apr/09/chris-atkins-starsuckers">"Celebrity Squares" interview in The Guardian</a>), I realised it was our old friend Kev The Pap winding me up. He had been trawling the streets of North London with his partner in crime - "Slippery John" - and they had clocked me walking down the road, pulled over and hopped out. I asked Kev how the pap business was going, and he replied "not bad - got a restraining order from Richard and Judy last week", which made me laugh so much I nearly staggered into oncoming traffic. It seems that Kev had snapped Richard Madeley and Judy Finnigan having a liquid lunch a few days earlier, and the pictures appeared in The Sun the following day with the sensitive headline "RICHARD AND WOOZY!". Rather than moderate their drinking habits, Richard and Judy served Kev with a restraining order preventing him taking pictures of them, enabling them to get pissed in peace. It seems that this is a growing trend among celebrities who are using anti harassment legislation to curb the enthusiastic behaviour of London paps. "Slippery John" nodded in agreement as Kev was telling us this, and then remarked proudly that he now can't go within 20 feet of David Walliams. The lawyers and judges who serve these draconian injunctions to curb the freedom of the press, probably didn't envisage that they would become badges of honour amoung the photographers they are meant to restrict. One may not publicly endorse what Kev and Slippery John get up to in order to fill our newspapers with photos of celebrity mishap (even though we all read the damn things), but there is a very fine line between preventing paps snapping boozy TV presenters, and restricting the press reporting on a politician or a public figure. And as the line between entertainers and politicians gets increasingly blurred, it is a worrying day when people in power can stop anybody taking photos in a public place.<br />
<br />
While we were chewing the fat over this, Kev did his usual trick of slipping his card to my companion, saying "Give us a call if you see any celebs... if I get a picture I'll sort you out a bung". My friend took the card, and - looking down the street - replied: "Er, isn't that Ricky Gervais?" We all turned, and sure enough, there Ricky Gervais jogging up the high street, panting and wheezing like he was about to have a heart attack. Kev and John then lost crucial seconds arguing about who's turn it was to get the shot, and by the time Slippery John had got his camera out the back of the car, Gervais had run straight past us. John called out after him, but Gervais - presumably realising that he didn't look at his best - found some untapped source of energy and pegged it off down the street. John - by no means a sprightly figure himself - barreled off after him, and we were treated to the hilarious sight of a portly celebrity being chased by an even more portly pap with an absurdly long lens. Gervais cunningly ran round a bus shelter a couple of times, to the surprise of the members of the public out for a stroll in the sunshine, meaning John was unable to get a decent shot. Gervais managed to escaped into the throng, and Slippery John staggered back, looking like just run a marathon. Once Kev stopped having hysterics they jumped into their mercedes, did a U turn, and gave chase. It seems that by the time that they caught up with him, Gervais had used his lead to take a crucial few moments to sort out his appearance, as their <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1265118/Nice-muscles-Ricky--shame-moobs.html">pictures that have appeared in The Daily Mail</a> show him looking pretty trim and composed.<br />
<br />
<br />
It was great to see an old friend again, and if anyone sees any celebs out and about, do give Kev a call and he'll sort you out with a few quid.<br />
<br />
Kev The Pap - 07776 347360<br />
<a href="http://celebrity.aol.co.uk/category/shooting-stars-1/">Kev's Showbiz Column</a>Starsuckershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16696776789077115432noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4745181320783500993.post-75141706623015425892010-04-05T11:44:00.000-07:002010-04-05T14:36:06.289-07:00And that's when it all kicked off...For a nasty minute I thought the <a href="http://www.channel4.com/programmes/starsuckers">More 4 TV broadcast (Tuesday 10pm</a>) was going to slip out without any press at all. Then at the end of last week we received a staggering 58 pages of angry from Bob Geldof, responding to the criticisms that Starsuckers makes of Live Aid and Live 8. The covering letter makes it clear that Bob's main bone of contention is not the allegations that Live Aid money was used to assist in a program of ethnic cleansing, or that Live 8 distracted and undermined the political campaign of Make Poverty History. No, the thing that has most rattled the ex boomtown rat is that I made up a story about his daughter stuffing pick'n'mix sweets down her bra, and sold it to the Daily Mirror as part of our <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/14/starsuckers-tabloids-hoax-celebrities">fake news stories hoax</a>. <br />
<br />
This was followed by an 11 page letter addressed to me personally, that is a chaotic mixture of legal threats, several lists of Bob's awards and TV appearances, insults, jokes and venomous criticisms of anti-poverty campaigners. Despite the letter being marked "not for publication", there was clearly an overwhelming public interest in Geldof's views on this subject being made known, as he wielded colossal unelected power and influence over world leaders at the G8 Summit in 2005. I made this letter available to the Guardian who <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/apr/02/bob-geldof-anti-poverty-campaigners-starsuckers">ran the story</a> on page of three of Saturdays paper. This has predictably enraged the anti-poverty movement (who Geldof described as "wankers dressed as clowns") and John Hilary (executive director of War on Want) has written a strongly worded response in a <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/05/geldof-arrogance-poverty-agenda-starsuckers">Guardian Comment is Free piece</a>. Last time I checked this was on the front of the Guardian website and had attracted over 200 comments in 4 hours.<br />
<br />
Independent on Sunday has run a <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/matthew-bell-the-iiosi-diary-040410-1935230.html">really nice diary piece</a> on the battles we've been through to get the film released, and the "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6qy-n5sCrc">Call Max!" spoof advert</a> for Max Clifford using our undercover camera footage is now at nearly 9,000 hits in just a few days. Still zero news coverage of this, which is unsurprising given that all the newspapers and TV news outlets are so terrified of Clifford that they dare not offend him. Everyone from The Sunday Times to BBC News rely on him not only for stories but as a pundit for all their celebrity and media stories. I wonder how many hits it will need to get before someone breaks cover...<br />
<br />
TV reviews coming out all weekend and they are all extremely strong. Guardian calls it "Superb" and the Times describes it as "Brilliant". Also glowing pieces in the Sunday Times, Observer and Independent on Sunday. I've been too rushed to get any Tabloids but would be extremely interested to see what the papers that we've turned over have to say.<br />
<br />
Fingers crossed the TV Broadcast goes ahead... I doubt that anything can stop it now, but anything can happen in 24 hours.Starsuckershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16696776789077115432noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4745181320783500993.post-67028679892538746652010-04-02T17:45:00.000-07:002010-04-03T02:18:58.404-07:00Don't like saturdays...<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/apr/02/bob-geldof-anti-poverty-campaigners-starsuckers">Story about Bob Geldof now on Guardian website</a>. If anyone needs to contact us for comment best email starsuckers3@gmail.com.Starsuckershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16696776789077115432noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4745181320783500993.post-90950910022816279972010-04-01T01:56:00.000-07:002010-04-02T06:04:43.717-07:00CALL MAX! Viral unleashed...We were worried that by catching <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6qy-n5sCrc">Max Clifford on undercover camera</a>, boasting about the things he does to protect his clients, we might have lost him some business. When Starsuckers was released back in October, we wrote to Max explaining that we had done to him what he has spent his career doing to other people. His immediate response was to call the infamous law firm Carter Ruck and threaten us with an injunction. <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivvFlLxAqJgE14rIMJzn44YHypORnlpbuYHjmaDSpGzdvy2G5CC4_rYsVdeQmP_zIj1VL-iCPB3sdb5g0d4jYo1ys3YvIiIl0bG4iYIspHGCW5b2mQewWL76BC_tZa1K-6_Tfz4MPKiRhF/s1600-h/Private+Eye+SS.jpg">Private eye story here</a>. Max and Carter Ruck backed down, and the film was released uncut. But what if his clients (like, say, Simon Cowell) found out that their their publicist was mouthing off about them in this way? Might these indiscretions hit Max's bottom line? So we made a little advert for Max to help him drum up some more business.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6qy-n5sCrc">Call Max advert.</a> 6700 views in less than 2 days!<br />
<br />
Please do pass on far and wide - we want as many people to see in case Max unleashes the lawyers on us again.<br />
<br />
The Starsuckers DVD is out on the 12th April, you can <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Starsuckers-DVD-Chris-Atkins/dp/B0037Z95YM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1270049838&sr=8-1">pre-order on Amazon here</a>. There are over 2 hours of special features, including some very silly interviews with the likes of Kiera Knightly, Al Pacino, Eddie Izzard, 50 Cent, Clint Eastwood, the Brats from Narnia and some other random famous people.Starsuckershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16696776789077115432noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4745181320783500993.post-73579981563449121292010-03-23T09:37:00.000-07:002010-03-23T09:47:27.795-07:00Big in LithuaniaWhen we were first invited to the Vilnius international film festival, we did wonder if I would be arrested immediately on leaving the plane. The penultimate scene in Starsuckers is a quick tour of Lithuanian politics, as they recently elected a party to their government comprised mainly of celebrities. When we discovered this a year ago I got the next plane out, and spent a memorable couple of days running round the parliament of a former soviet country with a camera. We interviewed several of their MP’s who were extremely frank with us, including Valinskas the Speaker of the Parliament, best described as the simon Cowell of Lithuania. Sitting in their cabinet office he explained to me that where he was once known as the best politician in Lithuania, but now he is known as the worst politician. As if to prove this point, he forced to stand down shortly after the interview, after allegations emerged linking him to the mafia. <br />
<br />
As it happened we needn’t have worried about the reception, as we were given excellent hospitality from the second we landed. The opening night party was livened up when a gang of completely pissed brits gate crashed the party. They did an excellent job as upstanding ambassadors for our country: one of them staggered up to the doorman, flashed a credit card, and declared “we’re all from BBC3”. This somewhow gained them entrance, and they quickly dived into the copious brandy. The festival director’s son, who was utterly delightful but built like a brick shithouse, was alerted and turfed them out into the street. We heard that several of the celebrity politicians featured in the film were planning to attend our screening the following evening, including Linas (the ex member of thrash metal band ZAZ). WE learned that he is also in trouble with his political colleagues, as he had missed the official opening of the government as he had stayed on his Thai holiday for an extra week. <br />
<br />
The morning journey to breakfast I was reminded that the most popular elevator manufacturer in this part or the world is a company called Schindler, so you are able to travel between floors in Schindlers Lifts. Boom tsh… We were taken on a lovely guided tour of the city, including several stunning churches and cathedrals. Lithuania has been in the news recently for <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/8570398.stm">a man attacking a policeman with his penis</a>, so I worked in my “golly what a big organ” gag as often as I could.<br />
<br />
The screening seated over 600 people, making it the largest auditorium we have played to date. It appeared that Linas hadn’t actually turned up to the screening as he was having too much fun at a nearby party. We crept back in to the screening towards the end to see the reaction to the Lithuanian scene, with the plan that if it sounded bad we could do a runner to the airport with a healthy head start. Fortunately they laughed in all the right places, so we decided we were safe to stay for the Q&A. They had decided to experiment with a new mechanism for the audiences participation - rather than have the hassle of running a microphone around what was a colossal auditorium, they decided to ask the audience to text their questions anonymously. Once received the host host would then pose the questions to me. This worked extremely well, as it meant that people could be more challenging in their questions, which always makes for a much more interesting debate than if you just get quizzed by people who completely agree with you.<br />
<br />
While the audience was generally very positive, I was asked if I felt guilty for mocking the Lithuanian people in the film. I responded that I thought we were pretty fair, given that I spent a lot of time interviewing ordinary Lithuanians about the political situation, and the majority were unhappy with the performance of the celebrity party. These interviews are not in the film, so I'm going to cut together a little montage of this and youtube it (when our feet touch the ground) as it does give the argument extra credibility.<br />
<br />
We then went out onto the town, and bumped into the same pissed brits who were again stinking drunk, and then sadly had to catch the morning flight home.<br />
<br />
DVD is out on the 12th April available to <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Starsuckers-DVD-Chris-Atkins/dp/B0037Z95YM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1269362790&sr=8-1">pre-order on Amazon</a>Starsuckershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16696776789077115432noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4745181320783500993.post-85632190145918595772010-02-18T08:21:00.000-08:002010-02-19T12:03:07.193-08:00Clifford speaks!For the first time since he was stung by Starsuckers on undercover camera, Max Clifford has discussed the affair with journalism.co.uk in <a href="http://www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/537622.php">Judith Townends piece</a> on the News of the World vs Starsuckers affair (complicated isn't it?). Clifford is quoted as saying:<br />
<br />
"They [Starsuckers] have said to several people I've tried to injunct them. I haven't. [I] never tried to; it's not my nature. I just wanted to make sure that I knew exactly what they were claiming, that's all...All I asked Carter-Ruck to do was to clarify exactly [because of] the letter they [the film producers] sent over."<br />
<br />
This is of course slightly at odds with the language used by Carter Ruck, when they wrote to us last October. Their letter to us of the 23rd October by Partner Magnus Boyd states:<br />
<br />
“The purpose of this letter is to invite your written confirmation by no later than 11am on 23 October that Mr Cowell’s name and the sums he has paid to Mr Clifford will be beeped in such a way as to ensure that your viewers cannot deduce this information from the film…. Please may we hear from you by 11am confirmation sought failing which we shall advise our client to apply to the court for relief including but not limited to an injunction.”<br />
<br />
We proceeded to screen the film to 250 journalists in leicester square without beeping out this information, so if this isn't a threat to injunct the film, I'm not really sure what is. <br />
<br />
This is hardly shocking behaviour from Clifford - being someone who gets paid huge sums of money to lie to protect his clients reputation, it's not unsurprising to assume that he would lie to protect his own.Starsuckershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16696776789077115432noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4745181320783500993.post-59541326413881335932010-02-17T10:30:00.000-08:002010-02-17T10:30:04.027-08:00Newswipegate Day 2Well if I've learned one thing from this it's the overwhelming speed at which something can fly on twitter. To clarify:<br />
<br />
-Last week we were told categorically that the Starsuckers piece would be in Tuesdays Newswipe<br />
-On the day of transmission we were told by the production team that the segment had been cut for pressures of time, just hours before broadcast.<br />
-Further calls elsewhere in the BBC told us that the segment was cut as it was fraught with legal problems and that the beeb did not want a lengthy battle with News International, a view further supported by messages we have received once it kicked off on Twitter.<br />
-Since then we've had categorical denials of this from several members of the Newswipe team and from Brooker himself (someone who I greatly admire). Brookers tweet suggests that they may use the piece in the future, which will now have to be in the next series. This seems unlikely given that it's a topical news program and that the next series will be going out nearly a year after the original story.<br />
-I have learned that doll in Adam Curtis' short was deliberately blacked out as a form of protest against the BBC for blanking out practically every other face in the doc.<br />
<br />
This was never supposed to be an attack on the BBC, and we're prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt and blame a cock-up over conspiracy. Nevertheless, it's handing a victory to News International, as we have kept the NOTW vs Starsuckers saga under wraps for 3 months as Newswipe wanted an exclusive. It also passes a cloud over the original issue, which was the NOTW tried to censor a film using the very laws that the NOTW has gone on record saying are an affront to free speech.<br />
<br />
Having been through all the correspondence I've made a timeline below of the NOTW's attempts to shut the film down, including extracts from the lawyers letters and emails.<br />
<br />
<b>20th March 2009.</b> Chris Atkins calls up 4 Sunday tabloids posing as someone who knows an administrative nurse at a plastic surgery clinic, offering to sell medical records of celebrities who have had cosmetic surgery. The Sunday Express make it clear over the phone that they have no interest in a story because it would break the PCC code and breach medical ethics. Journalists working for The News Of The World, The Sunday Mirror & The People all arrange to meet Atkins to discuss a deal. <br />
<br />
<b>26th March 2009.</b> Atkins meets all three journalists wearing an undercover camera. The sting is identical to those specialised by the NOTW, and special inspiration is taken from the famed NOTW undercover reporter Mazher Mahmood aka The Fake Sheik. During filmed conversations, both the journalists from the Sunday Mirror and The People offer Atkins money for medical records. The NOTW journalist expresses a cautious interest and makes it clear that any story would have to be in the public interest.<br />
<br />
<b>Summer 2009.</b> Atkins edits sequence under legal advice. Decision is made not to include the public interest line by the NOTW journalist as there was no obvious public interest possible for the stories, but the line is included in the article on the film that is being prepared by the Guardian who are preparing an article on the film.<br />
<br />
<b>Thursday 17th October</b>. Guardian breaks <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/15/starsuckers-celebrity-surgery-tabloids">medical records story on it’s website</a>. The article includes a statement from the NOTW defending it’s journalist.<br />
<br />
<b>Monday 19th October.</b> NOTW lawyers contact Starsuckers Lawyers and claim that their journalist has been libeled in the film, and demand to come and see the whole of Starsuckers prior to any public screenings. The NOTW have never given copy approval to the subjects of any of their stings and exposes. Six months earlier the NOTW Editor, Colin Myler, went in front of parliament and argued against prior notification when defending running the Max Mosely story without notifying Mosely first:<br />
<br />
<i>Q812 Janet Anderson: Why did you not give that opportunity to Mr Mosley?<br />
Mr Myler: Because we knew that probably Mr Mosley would get an injunction, and I felt very strongly that this was a story that actually should not be stopped because of an injunction</i>. (DCMS committee on press standards 5th May 2009)<br />
<br />
Starsuckers lawyers tell the NOTW that we won’t permit a viewing, but that we will include the NOTW statement at the end of the film.<br />
<b><br />
Tuesday 20th October.</b> NOTW’s solicitors, Farrer & Co, contact Starsuckers lawyers stating that they act on behalf of Sarah Nuwar, the NOTW journalist. Farrers also demand to view the film in full, with a copy being made available to the NOTW Lawyers. They also demand <i>“a full and unedited copy of the entirety of Mr Atkins’ recorded conversations both over the telephone and in person.”</i> This is of course privileged journalistic material, and the NOTW would never hand over their journalists notes simply because someone has asked them.<br />
<br />
They assert that from what they have seen of the film on the Guardian site, it has been edited in such a way that is highly defamatory and damaging to her personal and professional reputation. If Nuwar or the NOTW were to sue Starsuckers, they would be using the very same laws that they have gone on record saying are a draconian restriction on free speech. The head of legals for the NOTW, Tom Crone, has also been before parliament to complain about British libel law. <br />
<br />
<i>Mr Crone: The burden of proof in libel… is a very, very onerous burden indeed for newspapers to shift, especially if you happen to be the Sun or the News of the World.</i> (DCMS committee on press standards 5th May 2009)<br />
<br />
Farrers add in an email that they <i>“would therefore urge your clients to remove Ms Nuwar from the film altogether to avoid libelling her… before the film is screened” </i>The NOTW takes a different view of prior restraint when exposing the sex lives of footballers, and after the John Terry scandal Tom Crone stated: <br />
<br />
<i>“Over recent years, there has been more prior restraint on freedom of speech<br />
in Britain than in any other democratic country in the world. The British<br />
public's right to know has been the victim of this legal process. Hopefully<br />
that will now change.”</i><br />
<br />
Starsuckers lawyers issue firm rebuttal to the Farrers letter.<br />
<br />
<b>Thursday 22nd October </b><br />
Starsuckers receives a letter from David Price Associates - this is now the 3rd set of lawyers in 4 days who have tried to remove the NOTW and their journalist from the film. They state that <i>“your clients would be misguided to regard our client as ‘fair game’ simply because she is a News of the World Journalist”</i>. <br />
<br />
However in parliament her boss Colin Myler makes it clear that their journalists are always representatives of the paper.<br />
<br />
“<i>One of the things that I introduced into individual contracts was the understanding that, first of all, an individual on the staff of the paper had to absolutely take accountability for his or her behaviour as an ambassador representing the newspaper.”</i> (DCMS committee on press standards 5th May 2009)<br />
<br />
Despite these threats, the film is released un edited, and nothing further has been heard from the NOTW or their journalist. The hypocrisy of their whole legal campaign is underlined by Myler's assertion to parliament that he would not use libel laws against others:<br />
<br />
<i>Janet Anderson: When it comes to use of the libel law, we took evidence from Professor Greenslade, and he told us there are plenty of examples in which journalists are prime users of the libel law they affect to dislike. Have you or your paper ever issued a libel action to prevent another party publishing information about you?<br />
Mr Myler: I am not aware of one. I will check but I do not believe we have.<br />
Janet Anderson: Have you ever threatened anyone with libel action?<br />
Mr Crone: No. I have been in this job for 29 years four months and about 28 days and no, never - not that I can recall.</i> (DCMS committee on press standards 5th May 2009)<br />
<br />
The 5th May select committee ends with Crone pushing the “Reynolds Defence” to be enshrined in Law – ie giving journalists (and of course Starsuckers) the right to “Publish and be dammed.”<br />
<br />
<i>Adam Price: In terms of the Reynolds and Jameel defence of responsible journalism, do you think it would help free expression and free press if that judgment was placed on a statutory basis? If it was enshrined in law on legislation?<br />
Mr Crone: Yes, I think it probably would actually… I think to have it recognised and put into statute would be a good thing. (DCMS committee on press standards 5th May 2009)</i>Starsuckershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16696776789077115432noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4745181320783500993.post-79480217440955515032010-02-16T10:33:00.000-08:002010-02-16T11:24:08.744-08:00Newswipegate: NOTW vs Starsuckers vs BBC<a href="http://www.starsuckersmovie.com/">FILM TRAILER & WEBSITE HERE</a><br />
<br />
Back in October Max Clifford tried to injunct Starsuckers just before the release, using everyones favourite law firm, Carter Ruck. We told them to get rucked, and the film was released uncut. (<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivvFlLxAqJgE14rIMJzn44YHypORnlpbuYHjmaDSpGzdvy2G5CC4_rYsVdeQmP_zIj1VL-iCPB3sdb5g0d4jYo1ys3YvIiIl0bG4iYIspHGCW5b2mQewWL76BC_tZa1K-6_Tfz4MPKiRhF/s1600-h/Private+Eye+SS.jpg">Private Eye piece here</a>) <br />
<br />
At the same time, Lawyers acting for the News Of The World were also threatening us with fire and brimstone if we dared release a film that dragged their good name through the gutter. In one week there were three separate teams of lawyers attacking us on behalf of the News of the World and their journalist, ordering us point blank to edit any mention of her and the NOTW from the film. <br />
<br />
Ironically, this legal bullying campaign used the very same laws that the NOTW has campaigned against, claiming they restrict free speech. Colin Myler (NOTW editor) and Tom Crone (head of legals for the NOTW) have appeared before parliament and bitterly complained about the repressive libel and defamation laws in the UK. They defended their journalists' right to secretly film the rich and famous, and their decision to "publish and be dammed" without notifying the subjects of their stories. When they discovered that I had <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/15/starsuckers-celebrity-cosmetic-surgery-hoax">secretly filmed their journalist showing a cautious interest in purchasing of medical records</a>, they changed their tune somewhat, and deluged us with calls, emails and letters claiming that she had been libelled, and that we would be sued to hell and back if we released the film with her in it. This rather goes against their professed support of the "Reynolds Defence" (ie Publish and be Dammed), and they have gone on record stating that it should be enshrined in law. <br />
<br />
They also demanded to have a full and private screening of the film in our lawyers office prior to release, and to have full and unedited transcripts of the entire recordings of the secret filming. Anyone aware of the methods that the NOTW employs when it turns over the rich and famous (particularly the techniques favoured by Mazher Mahmood aka The Fake Sheikh), would find these demands extremely amusing, as they would never consider giving the same courtesy to the subjects of their stings.<br />
<br />
As with Clifford and Carter Ruck, we told them that we would see them in court. We released the film uncut and haven't heard from them since.<br />
<br />
A couple of months ago I filmed a piece for Charlie Brookers excellent Newswipe, the intention being to expose the gaping hypocrisy and contradiction of the NOTW's stance. The piece gained even more potency after the NOTW broke the John Terry story, and Tom Crone had been publicly claiming that News International were ruthless defenders of free speech. Brooker's team had specifically asked us to hold back the story of our legal battle, to give Newswipe the exclusive. Last week we were told that the Starsuckers vs NOTW story would definitely be in this weeks final show, neatly coming after the John Terry section.<br />
<br />
This afternoon we were told that the piece has been cut, and we have heard from several sources that this is due to the BBC caving in and avoiding a fight with the NOTW. <br />
<br />
The irony that a piece about censorship has in itself been censored has not passed us by. I think it's highly unlikely that this has anything to do with Mr Brooker himself, and more the influence of a spinless BBC legal department. To be honest it was fairly naive of us to think they would screen it in the first place, given the controversy averse nature of the beeb in recent times. We should have seen the writing on the wall when they blacked out practically every single face from Adam Curtis' <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kggld0A3ssM">otherwise brilliant short</a> in last weeks show, even though some of the archive was 50 years old and the people on screen would now be blatantly dead. If the BBC are terrified of upsetting the corpse of an unidentifiable policeman from a 1960's newsreel, what hope do we have that they would dare take on Rupert Murdoch. They even blanked out the face of a toy doll.<br />
<br />
I have a mountain of the NOTW correspondence, which I have matched with the contradictory public statements by Tom Crone and Colin Myler. It's about 20 pages long so am going to whittle down to something readable, and will post asap.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.starsuckersmovie.com/">FILM TRAILER & WEBSITE HERE</a><br />
<br />
Anyway onwards and upwards... If anyone in London wants to see Starsuckers (uncut) in the cinema, the Hub in Islington are putting on <a href=" http://islington.the-hub.net/public/events/166217">another screening on the 3rd of March 6.30pm</a> as the February screening has already sold out. I'll be doing a Q&A at the end, and can elaborate further on matters that are unsafe to blog...<br />
<br />
The film WILL be going out on DVD uncut in April, alongside a screening of a censored version of the film on More 4. Though I have to say that the Channel Four lawyers are showing considerably more backbone than their BBC counterparts, and hopefully nothing major will be cut - will report back on this when we have agreed the edit.Starsuckershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16696776789077115432noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4745181320783500993.post-39711764119523168412010-01-19T07:20:00.000-08:002010-01-19T07:20:21.350-08:00The PCC speaks!Three months after The Guardian published <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/15/starsuckers-celebrity-cosmetic-surgery-hoax">a front page story on our secretly filming tabloid journalists trying to buy medical records</a>, the PCC has finally engaged with us. In early january, I did an <a href="http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/features/if-a-mate-said-hersquod-seen-amy-winehousersquos-beehive-go-on-fire-would-you-believe-him-14626655.html">interview with the Belfast Telegraph</a> ahead of the screening of Starsuckers at the QFT Belfast, in which I made some disparaging comments of the PCC. A few days later, Stephen Abell - director of the PCC - <a href="http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/letters/pcc-has-direct-impact-in-raising-press-standards-14630727.html">responded in a letter</a> which sidesteps all the accusations levelled at his regulator. I've just fired off a response back - full letter is below.<br />
<br />
Other news in brief. We've just agreed a deal with a major international sales agent, which is great news. more details soon. TV version is well underway, hopefully we won't have to lose too much. And DVD extras are also being put together, and I think we're going to need more than 1 disc...<br />
<br />
To: The Editor, Belfast Telegraph<br />
<br />
Dear Sir<br />
<br />
In his letter of the 11th of January, Mr Abell (head of the PCC) made 2 misleading criticisms of my interview in your paper on the 7th, and fails to address the substantive accusations made about the PCC in my film, STARSUCKERS.<br />
<br />
He claims that I suggest that Paul Dacre has "involvement in the consideration by the PCC of the Daily Mail complaints", by making a comparison to Mugabe sitting as judge on his own war crimes. Mr Abell may claim that Dacre has had no direct involvement with that individual complaint, but the problem in one of public perception. The fact remains that the editor of The Daily Mail is involved at a senior level of the regulator that is investigating the very newspaper that published the offending article. It is also the view of some of the journalists who write for the newspapers he regulates. He has no doubt seen the clip from STARSUCKERS when a tabloid journalist from The People newspaper caught on undercover camera explained that "The PCC is run by the newspaper editors". <br />
<br />
He also criticises my comment that "no other industry in the world has this type of involvement in its own regulation". This is a minor misquote - I did in fact say that new other newspaper industry in the world has similar regulatory system. This is based on having spent the past 3 months giving interviews to foreign journalists about the STARSUCKERS revelations, and I can confirm that the PCC is seen as a laughing stock internationally. He interestingly cites the example of the ASA (who many criticise as being similarly toothless) rather than other closer examples of self regulation in the UK: the banking industry, the Police and the MP's expenses system.<br />
<br />
Mr Abell still has yet to publicly comment on the real issues that STARSUCKERS raises about the PCC. When I cold called four sunday tabloids offering to sell medical records, without any public interest reasoning, only one of them refused to engage further. The journalists for three newspapers he regulates agreed to meet me, which I secretly filmed. The News of the World journalist was reasonably cautious in her approach, but the journalists from the The Sunday Mirror and The People both offered money for medical records (without public interest) in clear breach of the PCC code. When the possibility of a PCC complaint was discussed with The People journalist, she explained that "most newspaper editors just brush it aside" and that they were viewed by the newspaper industry as a "slap on the wrist". The PCC claims to act in the interests of the public, but since these clips appeared on the Guardian website three months ago, the PCC has yet to publicly comment on these extremely serious matters. Perhaps Mr Abell would like to take this opportunity to rectify this?<br />
<br />
Chris AtkinsStarsuckershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16696776789077115432noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4745181320783500993.post-91811002260585545702009-12-05T04:47:00.001-08:002009-12-05T06:04:51.827-08:00Starsuckers goes on the road...Have spent the best part of the last 2 weeks zig zagging around this fair island, screening the film in a very wide variety of locations. Tour highlights thus far:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Edinburgh</span> On the train about an hour away from Waverly station, I was approached by a not unattractive member of the opposite sex who asked: "Are you Chris Atkins?". The endorphins kicked in and my ego swelled. "Yes" I responded as though I got asked this all the time. "Well, I work for the PCC." Once I got over the initial shock of the absurd coincidence, we had a very pleasant chat about how I had made a film that rubbished their entire organisation. It transpired that the entire PCC took an office outing to the afternoon screening of Starsuckers at the London film festival. Apparently someone asked me during the Q&A if there was anything practical that could be done about the appalling state of the British news media, and my response was "Abolish the PCC." Not unsurprisingly this put a bit of a downer over their little cinema trip. I apologised for ruining their day, and elaborated that I didn't think that the idea of a PCC was a bad one, and that actually the code was fairly written, but the fact that it is run and paid for by the newspaper editors themselves, has made it a laughing stock that nobody inside or outside the newspaper industry takes the slightest bit seriously as a regulator. She said that the newspaper editors don't "run" it, and that the PCC does do it's job properly. I pointed out that we had caught a journalist on undercover camera boasting that PCC complaints were "brushed aside" by editors and seen as a "slap on the wrist", and that it was "run" by the newspapers editors, to which she responded that in her view I had unfairly entrapped that journalist. Intrigued as to how filming someone attempting to break the law counts as entrapment, I asked her to explain this interesting defence - especially as The People newspaper refused to comment and the journalist herself has since lost her job. She wouldn't elaborate any further on the entrapment theory, but this did to me illustrate the fundamental problem with the PCC - they are there to protect and serve the interests of the newspapers themselves, not the public. Anyway she seemed a very nice and decent person, which also goes to show a wider point which is that the people working for these organisations - be it the PCC or a tabloid newspaper - are not themselves unpleasant or malicious, but they happen to work in places that structurally designed to profit from lying to the public.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Eggham, Surrey.</span> Spent the whole day screening the film at Strodes 6th form college. Their head of media studies decided that the entire college needed to see the film, and we turned the hall into a mini cinema in the morning and did 3 screenings followed by Q&A's during the day. Very sharp questioning from the students, who are much more likely to throw a curved ball question than older audiences. It did feel like a very new and exciting form of film distribution: no cinema, not even a distributor - just the film maker screening directly to the public. Plus they paid in cash which has cheered fliss the producer up no end. We've had a cash box gathering dust in the office for the last 2 years, and now we finally have some actual money to put in it. My proposition to stick it all behind the bar for the Starsuckers Christmas drinks has been firmly rejected, and unfortunately it's all destined to the lawyers benevolent fund.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Crewe</span> Screening in the theatre/cinema in South Cheshire College to several hundred 6th formers. Drove up the night before (only problem with these school screenings is the painfully early start) and discovered that Dan the co-ordinator had taken the economy drive a bit too seriously and booked me into a "hotel" that resembled the flea pit in the Blues Brothers that Jake and Elwood spend the night in right before Carrie Fisher blows it up with a rocket launcher. Having said that the great advantage of staying in something that more resembles a borstal than a hotel, is that they don't have any fire alarms so you can smoke in the room. The delightful Linda Buchanan (head of media at South Cheshire College) insisted I come out for a drink, and I found myself gate crashing the Christmas party of the Natwich Bookgroup, which I have to say was a lot more pleasant than crashing Harvey Winestiens party at the BAFTAs. Couple of hundred students trooped in to see the film the following day, and I was confronted by probably the best question thus far from all the Q&A's:<br /><br />Student: You know how your film, like, says that the media is all lies.<br />Atkins: That's about right.<br />Student: Well what if your film's all lies?<br />Atkins: Er, good point.<br /><br />Drove out of Crewe, only to be pulled over by 2 members of The Cheshire Constabulary who took exception to me dancing whilst driving on the motorway.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Northampton Forum Cinema</span> Screened to a packed cinema, so the word must be getting out somehow. Again lots of media students in the audience - I know this as 2 of them had a very heated exchange with their teacher in the corridor where I happened to be tapping away on my laptop. The gist of the debate from what I could overhear was that they wanted to quit their course, as the film had shown the world of media to be full of lies, corruption and deceit. It occurred to me that we have just made something which to some people is the equivalent of sitting in a room full of young children and explaining that Santa Claus doesn't exist and the tooth fairy is actually their mum.<br /><br />Next week is pretty busy - Sunday 6th is Richmond Curzon 2pm, with Q&A hosted by the delightful Riz Ahmed (brilliant young actor who played the lead in the superb "Shifty", and the BAFTA winning "Britz"). Tuesday is a special screening at the BFI on their Popular Press day. Apparently someone from the PCC was going to come down and give a talk as well, but have now apparently backed out once they heard I was going to be there. Heaven forbid that anyone from a public body that is supposed to serve the interests of the public ACTUALLY has a public debate with the public about extremely serious questions that have been raised about their organistion. If they do have a change of heart I'll happily debate with them just how effective the PCC is, and see if we can get it filmed and put on the blog.<br /><br />Screenings are still being booked now right up to March. Ideally we'd like to get the film booked into as many cinemas as possible, so do email your local independent cinema asking to get it played. In some cases we are arranging private screenings - especially to schools and colleges that are having difficulty arranging school trips, so do email us at starsuckers3@gmail.com to talk about setting something up.Starsuckershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16696776789077115432noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4745181320783500993.post-61880595297940407682009-11-11T06:18:00.000-08:002009-11-11T07:01:03.901-08:00More Screenings Announced!We've just been told we've got screenings in January at the Watershed Bristol, Showroom Sheffield, Broadway Nottingham and Cornerhouse Manchester. <a href="http://www.starsuckersmovie.com/screenings/">Check screenings tab</a> for more info as bookings now coming though on an almost hourly basis - just got offers in from Tewkesbury, Inverness and Wolverhampton. There seems to be some extremely strong interest from Schools & Universities that are studying Media, Journalism & English so we are already looking at putting on special screenings for student groups when we are in the various parts of the country. If you want to set something up please email us at starsuckers3@gmail.com and we'll see how we can arrange something.<div><br /></div><div>The Starsuckers office is now abuzz with excitement over our greatest press story so far. While we were chuffed to bits with our two Guardian front pages, subsequent worldwide coverage (mainly thanks to an offhand comment by George Clooney) and mainly glowing reviews in the British press, this all pales into insignificance when we heard there was a piece on us in this weeks Private Eye. The story of how we saw off the invading hoardes of both Carter Ruck and Max Clifford takes up the very first item in their media news section. This has made all of our parents extremely proud, but is tinged with the sadness of realising that it's all down hill from here.</div><div><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivvFlLxAqJgE14rIMJzn44YHypORnlpbuYHjmaDSpGzdvy2G5CC4_rYsVdeQmP_zIj1VL-iCPB3sdb5g0d4jYo1ys3YvIiIl0bG4iYIspHGCW5b2mQewWL76BC_tZa1K-6_Tfz4MPKiRhF/s1600-h/Private+Eye+SS.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 287px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivvFlLxAqJgE14rIMJzn44YHypORnlpbuYHjmaDSpGzdvy2G5CC4_rYsVdeQmP_zIj1VL-iCPB3sdb5g0d4jYo1ys3YvIiIl0bG4iYIspHGCW5b2mQewWL76BC_tZa1K-6_Tfz4MPKiRhF/s400/Private+Eye+SS.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5402860650688147938" /></a><br /><div><br /></div></div>Starsuckershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16696776789077115432noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4745181320783500993.post-75253033045823501502009-11-04T11:32:00.000-08:002009-11-04T15:46:56.117-08:00First Q&A run is now at an end...<!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US;font-family:Georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Just done eight Q&A's in seven days, and now even I'm sick of the sound of my own voice. Audiences have been very good, and we had over 100 in the screen on the green last night. Big shout out to Clare Binns at City Screen for standing four square behind this project and giving us these awesome cinemas - without her this film would be dead in a ditch.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US;font-family:Georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Last night's screening was livened up with the news that Law firm Carter-Ruck (who tried to injunct the film 10 days ago) had an office outing to the cinema. We're still not sure if they actually turned up, but half a dozen people in suits left en masse just before the Q&A kicked off.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US;font-family:Georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Film still showing at the Ritzy Brixton and Greenwich picturehouse in London, and the Glasgow Film Theatre and Cameo Edinburgh (til Thursday only). </span><a href="http://www.starsuckersmovie.com/screenings/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Screening times here</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">. If it isn’t showing near you contact your local cinema and ask them to book it, or email us at starsuckers3@gmail.com.</span></span><o:p></o:p></p> <!--EndFragment-->Starsuckershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16696776789077115432noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4745181320783500993.post-62904288670627140782009-11-01T05:38:00.000-08:002009-11-02T09:33:46.573-08:00Still alive - just....Been an exhuasting few days. Second London Film Festival screening on thursday passed off without any technical disasters, to the great dissapointment of everyone present. Friday screening at Curzon Soho was sold out, and the bar was rammed for a great while afterwards. Kev the pap was on fine form, and I'm pretty sure he passed out his card to a few folk, so they can call him if they see anyone famous. (now lost count of starsuckers ironies I'm afraid) People are actually turning up and paying good money to see it in other cinemas as well, but we need all the help we can get this weekend...<br /><br />We're all extremely pleased the whole reviews guantlet is now at an end. They've ranged from the extremely good (4 Stars in Sunday Times, Sunday Telegraph, Sunday Express, The Scotsman, The Independent and Film 4) to the generally positive (3 stars in the Guardian, Telegraph and the Mail) to the hateful (The Times). Newsnight review was apparently less than kind, but I haven't watched it as it may well cause me to kick in my television. Mark Frith (ex editor of Heat magazine) apparently hates the very air I breathe, which is hardly surprising - I doubt George Bush was particularly fond of Farenheit 9/11.<br /><br />Nothing from The Sun, News of The World, The Star, The Mirror or the Sunday Mirror. All of their critics came to see the film, so it says a lot about their critical independence if they have been ordered not to review the film.Starsuckershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16696776789077115432noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4745181320783500993.post-92116677098708415482009-10-29T05:04:00.000-07:002009-10-29T05:15:14.481-07:00Snakes eating tailsI couldn't have scripted the evening better myself. The premiere, Q&A and party after felt like it was the result of a collaboration between Richard Curtis and Hunter S Thompson. The paying public had turned up to witness a display of confusion and mishap, and they were not disappointed. The screening started half an hour late thanks to a previous showing running over. Then about 20 minutes into the movie, a gang of exceedingly merry Polish folk entered the auditorium and started singing very loudly, and had to ejected by myself, Nick the editor and Simon the animator. Film was followed by a pretty lively Q&A, and afterwards I regally told my friends that I would not be able to receive their praise as I had to be whisked away to have my official photo taken. Duly arrived at the LFF VIP area only to find the photographer had got bored and buggered off home, thus bashing my expanding ego firmly back into place. Only another 8 or so Q&A's to go, so we're off to an excellent start.Starsuckershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16696776789077115432noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4745181320783500993.post-35293314715344237672009-10-28T07:51:00.000-07:002009-10-28T08:00:23.958-07:00Full stream ahead! Right towards that iceberg...Well it's certainly been an experience. There's little else that quite compares to both finishing a and releasing a film simultaneously. On the one hand you're sat in ever more fetid edit suite desperately trying not to go cross eyed slotting in the credits and visual effects shots. On the other there is a steady stream of incredulous foreign press coming round for interviews who find the story about Guy Ritchie juggling cutlery the funniest thing this year. And when I get bored I can always play a game of "dodge the writ" with the most expensive legal minds in London. In the front room Producers Fliss & Christina are doing a valiant job managing the release, and making sure that all the cinemas that have booked the film actually have something to show on friday. Given the slightly cursed track record that the film has had thus far, we are making sure that everything is sent well ahead of time to avoid any technical screw ups. Fortunately we in Britain have the best postal service in the world, so there's no chance of anything going amiss there.<div><br /></div><div>Tonight is the first ever public screening at the London Film Festival, followed by "lively" Q&A. No,we haven't got any spare comps left in case anyone was wondering...</div>Starsuckershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16696776789077115432noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4745181320783500993.post-42643175323371754742009-10-26T07:30:00.000-07:002009-10-26T10:36:36.616-07:00Film Council kicks Starsuckers in the teethThe UK Film Council has, for one reason or another, had it in for this film from the get go. Over 2 years ago we went for a meeting with the New Cinema Fund (the bit that's allegedly there to support and promote low budget films) to see if they were interested in funding this project. We were first admonished for making our previous film (Taking Liberties) for its anti- government stance, and were then told that they would have no interest in a film that critisised the media, and we were essentially warned off applying for funding. On hindsight it did seem a bit of a fools errand to ask for cash from a public body who's Chairman is Tim Bevan (Head of Working Title - owned by Universal) and who's board members include Elizabeth Murdoch (daughter of Rupert, wife of Matthew Freud, sister in law of Richard Curtis etc etc). <div><br /></div><div>But today they really stuck the knife in by rejecting an application for what is supposed to be a compulsory £5k grant that they are supposed to give to all British films to help with their releasing costs. The Film Council's P&A Fund was allegedly set up to help support Independent Films fund their theatrical release. Putting a film into cinemas costs an arm and a leg, so this fund was set up with great intentions to help distributors cover the costs of advertising, marketing and so forth. In reality the majority of this money actually goes to promote foreign films with famous people in. Over the years your tax funded mandarins have given six figure sums of your money to impoverished artistes like U2 ("U2-3D" awarded £166,000) The Rolling Stones ("Shine a Light" awarded £154,000) and Harvey Weinstein, instead of giving it to genuine indie brit producers. Nonetheless they do have a "fast track" scheme which is essentially there to give a derisory bung to actual British film makers to make them go away and not complain. The standard grant that is doled out is £5,000 (which is about 5% of the minimum money needed to release a film theatrically in the UK) and has become known as the "f*ck off five grand" in film making circles. It's just about enough cash to pay for an advert the size of a postage stamp, but better than a kick in the teeth.</div><div><br /></div><div>Starsuckers applied for this and has instead been given kick in the teeth. As of today - to the best of my knowledge - we are officially the first British Film to be rejected for the F*ck off five grand based on the content. They have taken the view that because this film is (oh-er!) controversial, and critises lots of important media people - some of whom are on the board of the Film Council - then they as a public body are rejecting what is supposed to be a standard & automatic grant. If we had made a piece of marketing for a record label masquerading as a film about some tax dodging rock stars then presumably we'd have money thrown at us. We'll know for next time.</div><div><br /></div><div>Meanwhile we are now getting more cinema bookings by the hour, and we will be proceeding ahead with out the Film Council's help.</div>Starsuckershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16696776789077115432noreply@blogger.com0